establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to repair the consequences of the violations.432 Consequently, the Court has considered the need to award different measures of reparation in order to repair the harm integrally; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance to the harm caused. 433 272. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal relationship to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Hence the Court must observe this concurrence to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.434 273. Based on the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,435 in order to establish measures to repair the harm caused to the victims. A) Injured party 274. The Court considers that considers the injured party, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, as the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any rights recognized therein.436 Consequently, this Court considers that Sebastián Claus Furlan, his parents Danilo Furlan and Susana Fernández, and also his siblings Claudio Edwin Furlan and Sabina Eva Furlan, are the injured parties and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII, they will be considered as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 275. The representatives requested that the individuals who were not named as presumed victims by the Inter-American Commission in the Merits Report be included as beneficiaries of the reparations. They also argued that Sebastián Furlan’s two sons (Diego Germán and Adrián Nicolás Furlan Sarto), who are currently aged 4 and 3 years, should be considered presumed victims. They stated that, regardless of the fact that these children “were not named as presumed victims” in the Commission’s Merits Report, the relevant point is that “not only have they been indicated as such in different communications sent by Danilo Furlan to the Commission, but also that, in the said report, the Commission emphasized the fact that Sebastián has two sons, the younger of whom also has developmental problems.” They indicated that their “appropriate and timely identification by both Danilo Furlan and the Commission also means that the State is aware of this.” Furthermore, they argued that the Court has precedents in this regard, “taking into account 432 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 280. 433 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 280. 434 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 281. 435 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7. Para. 25 to 27, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 283. 436 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 126 and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 149. 86